dialamah

Thanks. Here's a link for you: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/?s=Religionofpeace

Here is what you fanatics from the far fringes of the right don't ever seem to understand. Ignorance of the facts by the majority of the population doesn't mean their "opinion" is right. Most people don't bother to look at more than the surface: something sounds reasonable "immigrants should assimilate more" so they agree, clueless about how well immigrants actually do assimilate. That is ignorance and laziness not bigotry. You, however, go to great lengths to only present "facts" that demean and marginalize immigrants from certain areas. That's bigotry and racism. An example: You took an Environics survey that says "young Muslims attend Mosque more than their parents" and used that to sound the alarm about Muslim youth becoming more extreme. At the same time you disregarded the information in that the same survey about Muslim youth also more accepting of homosexuality and strong support for female equality and other progressive Canadian values. You insist that going to Mosque more must exclude progressive values for Muslims, without, apparently, the slightest clue that this is exactly what "Islamic reform" means: Muslims with progressive ideas going to Mosque.

Good reason, eh? "Security improved, investment opportunity". Clearly you missed the point of my reply to Machjo, which asked whether someone would "beg to go back" to a place with poor security and poor employment. But hey, change that and suddenly home looks better than easy living in Canada! Once again proving my point that the simplistic "here to take advantage" is not an accurate statement. Where have I said that? I said I don't think they can be forced to assimilate, which is an entirely different thing than "make efforts to assimilate". The comment to which you took so much offense was the fifth post of mine on this thread. Hardly "the first thing I did" eh. Argus holds the view that Muslims are backward, barbaric, unable and unwilling to change; he has repeated such sentiments often on this forum. Are you denying that this kind of attitude among some Canadians would make it harder for Muslims to gain employment?

I like it in theory, though I must say I get tired of the years or decades old "bad behavior" used to discredit someone in our current surveillance system. I think there should be some kind of limit, unless its something like rape or murder. But thoughtless comments or minor gaffes should be off-limits after 2 or 3 years, imo.

Read my response to Goddess and try to be smarter than her. You hold the view that Muslims are backward, barbaric, unable and unwilling to change and its attitudes like this that make it harder for Somali men to find work, as the study I linked to points out. It isn't the only factor, of course, but it is one.

Oh FFS. I did not say that and I do not think he'd do that. Most people wouldn't. Stop letting your dislike of me make you stupid.

Why? Do you think they'd feel better having bombs dropped on them while they starved? Or maybe being beaten and raped with no chance of legal intervention while begging on the street is preferable to them? Not all of them, of course, but many of the people Argus criticizes come from places where employment is low and violence and lawlessness are high. Why would they "beg to go back"? The narrative that they are lazy and are only interested in taking advantage of our social assistance system is no more true than the narrative that they're so discriminated against that they can't get a job despite all their best efforts. Doscrimination amd bigotry play a part, lack of skills and education play a part, and for some "easy living" is no doubt true. None of those things by themselves is the whole problem, they are all part of the whole.

I think some people on this forum are bigots, some are racists, some are racist bigots. I think they represent the minority of Canadians and I think its acceptable and even necessary to call those people out. Pretty sure if you overheard someone on the street calling a woman down as an "extremists, fundamentalists, archaic, static, barbaric, irrational, unresponsive to change, and unwilling to assimilate" you'd defend that woman; you seem like the type who would. Maybe you have; I know I have. But some on this forum would not, and I believe those are the ones you so eagerly defend.

People like Argus, who do things like this: depict Muslims as extremists, fundamentalists, archaic, static, barbaric, irrational, unresponsive to change, and thus unwilling to assimilate.

What's this "WE" stuff? Aren't you Canadian???

I couldn't find a cite to back that statement up, but however true it is, there are reasons for that have to do with people like you. https://www.ryerson.ca/content/dam/diversity/reports/UARR_2015.pdf

This is just such ongoing bullchit. Our country offers freedom and equality for *everyone*, not just first settlers or "old stock" Canadians. If people come here and present a case for some kind of accommodation, our country gives them that right. That is part of what makes Canada (and the States, for that matter) great. Snowflakes crying foul because OMG a new Canadian is allowed to do something they've never seen before are the ones who don't understand (or accept) Canada. And it's funny that, when asked, these people can't really describe any way in which Canada's culture has changed because "immigrants demanded that we change to make them happy" - other than to become ever-more progressive in terms of human rights and equality.

The question here is not "What is Canadian", but "What is NOT Canadian, and therefore worthy of being evicted from Canada". A major non-Canadian characteristic is following a religion that believes in male domination over females, resulting in women appearing in public in long dresses and/or head coverings. It's "non-Canadian" to speak a language other than English or French. It's "non-Canadian" to live in an ethnic 'enclave'. It's non-Canadian to get welfare or child tax benefits for having Canadian children when you are something other than white. It seems there's quite a few things that can make you 'non-Canadian'. Yup, I have several religions represented in my family. Also, non-religion - sometimes I forget that people really do believe that God exists and that there is heaven or hell as a final destination. Perhaps Argus has a definitive answer. I sure don't.

Over the weekend, I saw some Mennonite women and girls in their modest dresses and caps. They, the Amish, the Hutterites, etc. practice a lifestyle that does not accord equality to women, and where abuse and pedophilia are hidden away, the perpetrators protected and victims punished. They reject Canadian society to the extent that their children are warned away from us (the English) and they refuse to live in our neighborhoods and cities. Clearly these folks are not Canadian and do not want to be Canadian. What is your solution to that?

Why would they have to leave? Getting citizenship isn't a requirement for remaining in Canada, or in Switzerland for that matter. The Swiss model is interesting because its not their national government that denies citizenship requests, but local authorities. They refuse citizenship for things like not shaking hands, not knowing where a specialty cheese comes from, wearing sweatpants and not saying hi often enough, or being too much of an activist. Not convinced I like that model for Canada, but if it works for the Swiss, I say good on them.

"Forcing" rarely works well for anything. Sure, you can do things like make certain modes of dress unacceptable in public, or deny citizenship based on handshaking or refusing to go to a pool with the opposite gender. It might work, but what is more likely is that those people will become ever more attached to their ideas. They will close themselves off from the wider society even more, and even if the dominant society never sees a niqab or hijab, the women and girls will still be oppressed, controlled and abused in their homes. Immigrant women are already the least likely to access domestic abuse services; how much less likely will they be if it's made clear to them that they are unwelcome?l Thats the problem with "forcing" assimilation: there'll be a lot more lip service than actual buy-in. Education and time is the only way to get real buy-in, if thats the goal.

Only if you don't know what words mean. Supremacy: the state or condition of being superior to all others in authority, power, or status. White Supremacy = White people are superior to all others. People deserve respect for who they are, not because of their race. Unless they think they are "superior" to others based on nothing more than an accident of birth over which they had no control. Those people deserve mockery, not respect. End of story.

I suspect that if they did have access to planes and bombs, they'd use them. They might even adjust the definition of martyr to encompass those who kill infidels and not just those who die. Kind of how they've adjusted the meaning of jihad to mean offensive war against others, and not an internal struggle, or defensive war.

If I join antifa, will I get skinny?

Well I see these things on a continuum: 1. I don't like Islam/Muslims because they are (backward, misogynistic, violent, ignorant, opportunistic, lazy, unemployable) and should not be part of Western countries unless they can prove they are none of the above. 2. Islam/Muslims are a threat to Westerners and Western culture and only idiots think they aren't. I have to tell everybody about the threat they pose. 3. I have to do something about Islam/Muslims because they are a threat to Westerners and our leaders don't care and even people who recognize their threat are too scared to do anything. 4. Takes action, whether its yelling at a woman in niqab, tearing off her hijab or shooting people at prayer. The actors at each stage may be different, but they all validate each other in this process. I get that you think people like DoP are irrelevant in the process that leads people like Bissonnette to action. Don't really care, I'm gonna call it how I see it. You can get butthurt and defensive on DoP's behalf all you want.

In Canada white western types outperform Islamic fanatics. Around the world, non-Islamic terrorism is increasing while Islamic terrorism is decreasing. I admit I am more bothered when terrorism is carried out by individuals from "my tribe" because I used to think we were better than that. But people like DoP, Taxme, Alexandre Bissonette and others have persuaded me that we (White Westerners) have not learned from our past and are no less judgemental, hateful and prone to killing innocents than those from those other tribes.

As you play up the ones by Muslims and minimize the ones against Muslims by White, Western types. Identity politics: not just for Liberals anymore.

Yeah that is stramge. Although violent extremists are remarkably similar in their thought processes, behavior, gender and age, it is important to know the exact group any particular extremist belongs to. Else it will be remarkably difficult to know which attacks and massacres we should play up and which we should minimize. And how will we know when the media/politicians is focussing too much on our group's extremists and not enough the other group's? Making sure we know and can name the identity group individuals are associated with is a key element in playing identity politics, I suspect.